N.Shanmugam v. Commissioner

ORDER Heard Mr.Damodaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.Vigneshwaran learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent and Mr.Akila Rajendran, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶2For the purpose of disposal of this writ petition, the facts which are necessary are set out hereunder :- The petitioner has filed an application with the third respondent seeking information under 39 heads. The respondent issued a reply stating that the information could not be furnished. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent. Page3 of 9

¶3Since the third respondent did not furnish the information sought by the petitioner, he preferred an appeal before the first respondent on 07.08.2025. Claiming that the said appeal has not been numbered, he has filed the present writ petition.

¶4When the matter came up for admission, after going through the information sought by the writ petitioner, I was of the view that there is no bar for the petitioner being furnished with copies of the same. Hence, I directed Mr.LSM.Hasan Fizal, to get instructions and submit a report before this Court. As the efforts of Mr.LSM Hasan Fizal were unsuccessful, I called upon the third respondent to be present in Court, along with the records.

¶5When I took up the matter today, Ms.Akila Rajendran, who has entered appearance for respondent 2 and 3, has produced the records before this Court. It is represented that the third respondent has produced all the records available in his possession and that the same constitutes full compliance with the requirements of the writ petition. Page4 of 9

¶6Mr.L.Damodaran submitted that some more records are available with the third respondent which have not been produced.

¶7Hence, the third respondent was called upon to file an affidavit stating that he has furnished all the necessary information in his possession and has also produced all the records that are under his control.

¶8The third respondent filed an affidavit sworn to by Mr.N.Naveen, who is holding Office of Public Information Officer-cum-Joint Sub-Registrar II Chengalpet has been filed. The same is scanned and extracted hereunder :- Page5 of 9 Page6 of 9 Page7 of 9 Page8 of 9

¶9A perusal of the paragraph No.5 of the affidavit shows that the third respondent has produced all the records available in his office and has also provided all the information that is under his control to the petitioner.

¶10The affidavit is recorded.

¶11Mr.Vigneshwaran states that the appeal filed by the petitioner on

07.08.2025 has been returned. Since the relief sought by the petitioner before the first respondent has already been granted by this Court, the Information Commission will not process the appeal concerned with this writ petition .

¶12The writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. 27-02-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order KKD Page9 of 9

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J. KKD To

¶1The Commissioner, The State Information Commission, Fanpet , Nandanam, Chennai 600 001.

¶2The First Appellate Authority, District Registrar Office, Chengalpet 603 001.

¶3The Public Information Officer, Joint Sub-Registrar Office II, Chengalpet 603 001. 27-02-2026

Page1 of 9 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27-02-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN N.Shanmugam ..Petitioner(s) Vs. 1. Commissioner The State Information Commission, Fanpet , Nandanam, Chennai 600 001. 2. The First Appellate Authority District Registrar Office, Chengalpet 603 001 3. The Public Information Officer, Joint Sub Registrar Office II, Chengalpet 603 001. ..Respondent(s) Praryer : This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner's appeal dated 7.08.2025 on merits, and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to furnish complete and certified information/ documents as sought for in the petitioner's application dated 28.04.2025 made under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act 2005, in respect of the property comprised in Survey No. 388/13 (part) measuring an extent of 0.20 1/4 cents (out of 0.40 1/2 cents) and lands bearing Survey No. 388/10 measuring an extent of 0.35 cents totally measuring 0.55 1/4 cents together with 1/4th undivided share in the well comprised in Survey No. 388/14 situated at Page2 of 9 Kayarambedu Village, Chengalpattu Taluk, Kancheepuram District within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. For Petitioner(s) : Mr.L.Dhamodharan For Respondent(s) : Mr.C.Vigneshwaran Standing Counsel – R1 Ms.Akila Rajendran Govt.Advocate – R2 & R3